Jump to content

Talk:Nikola Tesla

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleNikola Tesla has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 3, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 14, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 4, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 9, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 6, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
November 7, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
February 12, 2017Good article nomineeListed
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 10, 2017.
Current status: Good article

Contradicting information

[edit]

How can "Tesla first studied engineering and physics in the 1870s without receiving a degree", while later "He finished a four-year term in three years, graduating in 1873" is stated? 2001:1C06:1B06:1A00:3071:CADF:36B6:FADF (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2025

[edit]

Change "Arcturus" to "Antares", as the source listed calls the star "Antarus" WindowsXPenjoyer (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --ChetvornoTALK 03:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article review

[edit]

I took a look at this article last year, and saw lots of progress was made since then. Below are some concerns that still remain in the article:

  • There's uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. If editors want, I can add citation needed templates to these locations.
  • I removed lower-quality or duplicate sources from the "Further reading" and "External links" sections. I think there are additional sources listed that could either be used in the article or removed.
  • The article relies a lot on block quotes. Considering the vast amount of material about this person, I think summary style would be more appropriate.
  • "New York laboratories" suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION, with one paragraph sections. This should be formatted more effectively.
  • In general, this article seems a little disorganised. This is probably because many editors have added prose over the years but no one has gone through the entire article to ensure it is coherant. Is anyone willing to do this?

If editors are willing to help, I think this article could become a featured article. I would do it myself, but I am not a subject-matter expert. Z1720 (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good cleanup. I participated in the GA and it was a major cleanup from its previous state. The choppiness in the "New York laboratories" is a vestige from how the article used to be more of a "list of Tesla inventions". Improving the summary style would be an improvement. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]